“There’s a need to immediately question the guy whether you Mirandize him or not to save lives,” Roper said. “The question is how far do you go before it turns into a custodial interrogation?”

Republican Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina went a step further, suggesting Dzhokhar be treated as an enemy combatant like a soldier captured in war. The move drew the ire of longtime McCain aide and speechwriter Mark Salter.

“My friend, Lindsey Graham, is wrong on this,” Salter posted on his Facebook page. “However unforgivable his crimes, he's a US citizen, arrested on US soil, with, at this time, no known associations with foreign terrorist organizations at war with the U.S. To declare him an "enemy combatant," and deny him his rights is un-American.”

_________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

Yeah... for all the enraged, incoherent commentary on both sides of the Miranda issue, the public safety exception to the requirement is well-established, made for exactly this sort of circumstance (most probable: they may have more bombs stashed around the city), and there's a darn good chance he'd be convicted even if he stayed stubbornly silent - gunfights with the police are fairly unambiguous.

The concerning thing, to me, is the people arguing for military tribunal, as opposed to a normal criminal trial. Dude is an American citizen, on US soil. He can most certainly be facing the federal death penalty already, so... why do we need to involve the military courts?_________________“Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation”
yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.

This is going to bring out the worst in so, so many people. The GOP pundits are fucking already circle jerking each other over this. And it's going to go on and on. It's gonna be all "See!?!? We gotta get rid of them illegals or else BOSTON!!!!" for fucking months and months. Which is obviously stupid and has nothing to do with the issue here but that's not going to stop them. Not one tiny fucking bit, and that's what makes me sad.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The fertilizer plant that exploded on Wednesday, obliterating part of a small Texas town and killing at least 14 people, had last year been storing 1,350 times the amount of ammonium nitrate that would normally trigger safety oversight by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Yet a person familiar with DHS operations said the company that owns the plant, West Fertilizer, did not tell the agency about the potentially explosive fertilizer as it is required to do, leaving one of the principal regulators of ammonium nitrate - which can also be used in bomb making - unaware of any danger there.

Fertilizer plants and depots must report to the DHS when they hold 400 lb (180 kg) or more of the substance. Filings this year with the Texas Department of State Health Services, which weren't shared with DHS, show the plant had 270 tons of it on hand last year.

A U.S. congressman and several safety experts called into question on Friday whether incomplete disclosure or regulatory gridlock may have contributed to the disaster.

"It seems this manufacturer was willfully off the grid," Rep. Bennie Thompson, (D-MS), ranking member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said in a statement. "This facility was known to have chemicals well above the threshold amount to be regulated under the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Act (CFATS), yet we understand that DHS did not even know the plant existed until it blew up."

Company officials did not return repeated calls seeking comment on its handling of chemicals and reporting practices. Late on Friday, plant owner Donald Adair released a general statement expressing sorrow over the incident but saying West Fertilizer would have little further comment while it cooperated with investigators to try to determine what happened. "This tragedy will continue to hurt deeply for generations to come," Adair said in the statement.

Failure to report significant volumes of hazardous chemicals at a site can lead the DHS to fine or shut down fertilizer operations, a person familiar with the agency's monitoring regime said. Though the DHS has the authority to carry out spot inspections at facilities, it has a small budget for that and only a "small number" of field auditors, the person said.

Firms are responsible for self reporting the volumes of ammonium nitrate and other volatile chemicals they hold to the DHS, which then helps measure plant risks and devise security and safety plans based on them.

Since the agency never received any so-called top-screen report from West Fertilizer, the facility was not regulated or monitored by the DHS under its CFAT standards, largely designed to prevent sabotage of sites and to keep chemicals from falling into criminal hands.

The DHS focuses "specifically on enhancing security to reduce the risk of terrorism at certain high-risk chemical facilities," said agency spokesman Peter Boogaard. "The West Fertilizer Co. facility in West, Texas is not currently regulated under the CFATS program."

The West Fertilizer facility was subject to other reporting, permitting and safety programs, spread across at least seven state and federal agencies, a patchwork of regulation that critics say makes it difficult to ensure thorough oversight.

An expert in chemical safety standards said the two major federal government programs that are supposed to ensure chemical safety in industry - led by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) - do not regulate the handling or storage of ammonium nitrate. That task falls largely to the DHS and the local and state agencies that oversee emergency planning and response.

Shellfish-based preservative spray?
I'd be annoyed by this and kind of angry that I couldn't compost the peels, but I'd still buy them if there wasn't an alternative.

but all that just so they don't turn brown? who the hell wants that?

Giant corporation: "these bananas will never appear to be ripe thanks to this shit we put on them! also some of you are deathly allergic BUT WE DON'T CARE"
hordes of consumers:"YAAAAY"_________________butts

Crazy gun hater's will just use this as an excuse to point fingers at responsible gun owners, lol.... Why don't we see stories about all the gun owners who don't threaten people with their weapons over chicken wings?

I'm rather confused as to how it is legal to not give him his miranda rights, and how it would be legal to try him as an enemy combatant in the first place, given the fact he is a US citizen._________________Whatever happened to the heroes?

it's legal not to read him his Miranda rights so far because of the public safety exception. law enforcement can question him about issues directly relating to public safety (e.g. "are there any bombs left? if so, where? are there any other bombers?")

eventually they have to read him his rights, though

i don't know how they can legally treat him as an "enemy combatant," though

it's legal not to read him his Miranda rights so far because of the public safety exception. law enforcement can question him about issues directly relating to public safety (e.g. "are there any bombs left? if so, where? are there any other bombers?")

eventually they have to read him his rights, though

i don't know how they can legally treat him as an "enemy combatant," though

Also, even if they didn't read him his miranda rights, they could still send him to trial, I'm pretty sure-they just wouldn't be able to use anything from the interrogation as evidence (since he had not been reminded that he did not have to self incriminate). However, that doesn't really matter; I'm fairly certain they have *more* than enough evidence to try him without actually needing the interrogation.

Basically, from whatI understand, the purpose of a miranda right prior to an interrogation is "By the way, what you say here, we can TOTALLY bring up in trial. But you don't have to respond to us." If you don't do that, then you can't use what the suspect talked about during the interrogation at the trial-but you can still put them *on* trial.

And given that he's currently on some very *heavy* sedation drugs, I'm not sure any testimony he gave during an interrogation could be used at trial, even IF they mirandized him.

(Note: I am not a lawyer.)_________________"No, but evil is still being --Is having reason-- Being reasonable! Mousie understands? Is always being reason. Is punishing world for not being... Like in head. Is always reason. World should be different, is reason."
-Ed, from Digger